click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20110709
20110709
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
because of iraq and afghanistan those views are shifting. that invisible wounds, mental wounds, psychological wounds, are just as debilitating and in some cases more debilitating than losing a arm or leg. gwen: what is it about these wars that's different from other wars in changing people's opinions about that? >> part of it is the sheer number of tours. you have people going three, four, five, six times to these war zones. and part of the nature of the war itself. in world war ii, you had big battles where the guys to your left and right of you were shooting at enemies. and it was more of a conventional fight. in iraq and afghanistan, you could be walking as has been the case where i've been there, and a person who's a friend of yours suddenly disappears in an i.e.d. you never see the enemy who took his life. a very different kind of challenge. you are constantly afraid of something bad happening. and you never know who the person is who's doing that bad thing to you or the person you care about. >> yochi, does the policy change affect benefits in a way that needed some deep
the shenandoah valley who gave his life in afghanistan is being buried at arling nonnational cemetery later this afternoon, and i do want to be there, so i appreciate the opportunity to ask questions of the witnesses before i depart. let me start with ms. matsen. have you heard from -- i've heard from these counties as well, expressing their concern about what takes place in the national forest. it's my understanding that not to the same degree we have in the allegheny national forest where 9 % of the mineral rights are owned by private individuals and only 3% by the national forest. but sub-surface rights are primarily not owned there. but in the george washington national forest, it's my understanding from the national forest that 16% of the land, or about 180e,000 acres are owned by private entities in terms of the sub surface mineral rights. so if one were to see in those portions of the national forest, that land would be subject to your regulation, would it not, and not to the forest service's regulations? >> i will look to my expert to confirm, but as far as my understanding is that
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)